Which transaction do you prefer the Reds would have made: the Scott Rolen trade or the Alex Rios acquisition?

Topcat

08-11-2009, 01:19 AM

Rolen and i say this due to fact 60 million is way to much to take on for Rios.

corkedbat

08-11-2009, 01:20 AM

Rolen, still a bad trade, but not nearly as dumb as a team like the Reds committing that kind of money to a poorly-motivated Rios.

Emin3mShady07

08-11-2009, 01:25 AM

Poorly motivated? Based on what?

Anyways, 35 year old, with injury history and the loss of 2 good pitching specs Vs. financial commitment on a 28 year old guy who should be worth it. No brainer to me, Rios.

Brutus

08-11-2009, 01:31 AM

Which transaction do you prefer the Reds would have made: the Scott Rolen trade or the Alex Rios acquisition?

It's completely a moot point. Even if the Reds were interested, they could not have acquired Rios as the White Sox were first in the pecking order. Rios was not an option for the Reds.

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 01:32 AM

It's completely a moot point. Even if the Reds were interested, they could not have acquired Rios as the White Sox were first in the pecking order. Rios was not an option for the Reds.

Dude, I get that. I don't run the Reds either, and I'm fairly certain you aren't Walt Jocketty. So just play the game, will ya? :)

RedsManRick

08-11-2009, 01:34 AM

I think the package of EE, Rios, Stewart, and Roenicke will produce more net value during the course of their contracts/control than will Rolen -- so I'll take the former.

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 01:37 AM

I think the package of EE, Rios, Stewart, and Roenicke will produce more net value during the course of their contracts/control than will Rolen -- so I'll take the former.

Exactly. For a team like the White Sox, getting the best overall player--whether it is Scott Rolen or Jake Peavy--to put them over the top is worth the price of prospects. But for a team like the Reds, they should be looking down the road. Those four players help the Reds beyond 2010 while Rolen will not...

TheNext44

08-11-2009, 02:04 AM

I think the package of EE, Rios, Stewart, and Roenicke will produce more net value during the course of their contracts/control than will Rolen -- so I'll take the former.

Thinking in the same vein, committing $60 over the next 5 years will decrease the Reds ability to acquire talent, making it impossible for the Reds to compete during that time, no matter how good Rios is.

We all saw what that does to a team from 2000-2008.

Worst case scenario with Rolen, his contract forbids the Reds to compete in 2010, then disappears. The Reds would have lost two cheap bullpen arms in the deal, which can be replaced. They still will be able to compete from 2011 to 2015, unhindered by this move.

Rolen has the more exceptable downside, in my opinion.

Tom Servo

08-11-2009, 02:10 AM

Rolen for a couple of reasons:

1. He's still one of the best 3B in the league, the same cannot be said for Rios in the outfield.

2. $60 million is way too much for a team like the Reds to take on for ANY player, let alone one with a low .OBP and hasn't driven in more than 85 runs in a season.

3. Rolen's contract is only for this season and the next, not multiple years like Rios'.

I actually think picking up Rios for nothing is a good move for the White Sox and one they can afford to make, but it wouldn't have been a good move for the Reds.

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 02:12 AM

Thinking in the same vein, committing $60 over the next 5 years will decrease the Reds ability to acquire talent, making it impossible for the Reds to compete during that time, no matter how good Rios is.

We all saw what that does to a team from 2000-2008.

Worst case scenario with Rolen, his contract forbids the Reds to compete in 2010, then disappears. The Reds would have lost two cheap bullpen arms in the deal, which can be replaced. They still will be able to compete from 2011 to 2015, unhindered by this move.

Rolen has the more exceptable downside, in my opinion.

This isn't the same situation as Griffey. He was usually around 25% of his team's payroll. Rios would be more like 15% of the budget.

More over, Rios won't cost much more than Rolen in 2010. After 2010, Arroyo comes off the books, along with the eventual departure of Harang and other bad contracts. I just don't see Rios's contract holding the Reds back as long as they make other shrewd moves (like not giving Mike Lincolns or Willy Taverass two-year contracts)...

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 02:15 AM

3. Rolen's contract is only for this season and the next, not multiple years like Rios'.

See, I don't get this. Unless you see the Reds as contenders in 2010, why would you want to acquire an expensive player who is not part of your long-term plans?

Tom Servo

08-11-2009, 02:20 AM

See, I don't get this. Unless you see the Reds as contenders in 2010, why would you want to acquire an expensive player who is not part of your long-term plans?
Because in theory I expect the Reds to try and contend every year seeing as they refuse to pull the trigger on a tear down and fire sale.

Plus we could always re-sign Rolen post 2010 at a more reasonable price, given the way the free agent market bottomed out last winter. Wouldn't be able to do that with the $60 million you'd guarantee to Rios.

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 02:24 AM

Because in theory I expect the Reds to try and contend every year seeing as they refuse to pull the trigger on a tear down and fire sale.

Plus we could always re-sign Rolen post 2010 at a more reasonable price, given the way the free agent market bottomed out last winter. Wouldn't be able to do that with the $60 million you'd guarantee to Rios.

And you expect the old and broked down Rolen to still be one of the best third baseman in the league post-2010? Because Rios will be much closer to his prime over that time frame.

Another thing: I'm tired of people throwing around Rios's guranteed contract amount to make it look more severe. Rios is only guranteed $12M per year, which is what we are paying pitchers like Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo...

TheNext44

08-11-2009, 02:27 AM

This isn't the same situation as Griffey. He was usually around 25% of his team's payroll. Rios would be more like 15% of the budget.

More over, Rios won't cost much more than Rolen in 2010. After 2010, Arroyo comes off the books, along with the eventual departure of Harang and other bad contracts. I just don't see Rios's contract holding the Reds back as long as they make other shrewd moves (like not giving Mike Lincolns or Willy Taverass two-year contracts)...

It's not the money, it's the length of the contract.

Mid market teams can not afford to lock up money long term. Look what is happening now with Harang, Arroyo and Cordero. Rios at $12M for the next 5 years locks the Reds into one plan for that time, with very little ability to adjust if anything happens.

Too many things change over the course of time. Maybe this year is not the fluke? Maybe he gets hurt, actually, over the next 5 years, odds are very good that he will, probably more than once. Maybe the market for defensive minded CF gets flooded over the next 5 years? Maybe the team gets flooded with outfielders in a few years, and needs to shed some to get pitching, but can't because of Rios' contract? No one knows what the Reds will look like in five years.

Right now, it looks like the team can afford him, but soon after Arroyo and Harang come off the books, Phillips bumps up, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey become arb eligible, and Rios' contract forces the Reds to trade some of them. His contract is so long, it will affect the payroll when Alonso, Stubbs, Farzier, Wood or whoever makes the club next year become arb eligible.

Unless the player is Albert Pujols or the like, the Reds should never have any player signed to a 5 year, $60M contract.

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 02:37 AM

It's not the money, it's the length of the contract.

Mid market teams can not afford to lock up money long term. Look what is happening now with Harang, Arroyo and Cordero. Rios at $12M for the next 5 years locks the Reds into one plan for that time, with very little ability to adjust if anything happens.

Too many things change over the course of time. Maybe this year is not the fluke? Maybe he gets hurt, actually, over the next 5 years, odds are very good that he will, probably more than once. Maybe the market for defensive minded CF gets flooded over the next 5 years? Maybe the team gets flooded with outfielders in a few years, and needs to shed some to get pitching, but can't because of Rios' contract? No one knows what the Reds will look like in five years.

Right now, it looks like the team can afford him, but soon after Arroyo and Harang come off the books, Phillips bumps up, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey become arb eligible, and Rios' contract forces the Reds to trade some of them. His contract is so long, it will affect the payroll when Alonso, Stubbs, Farzier, Wood or whoever makes the club next year become arb eligible.

Unless the player is Albert Pujols or the like, the Reds should never have any player signed to a 5 year, $60M contract.

I see what you are saying and you are mostly right. The only thing I can counter with is that I don't think the Rolen trade is how a mid-market team like the Reds can go about winning either. Trading young, valuable assets like Josh Roenicke and Zach Stewart isn't a good way of doing business. Those kind of players are why the Reds could afford a contract like Alex Rios...

TheNext44

08-11-2009, 03:04 AM

I see what you are saying and you are mostly right. The only thing I can counter with is that I don't think the Rolen trade is how a mid-market team like the Reds can go about winning either. Trading young, valuable assets like Josh Roenicke and Zach Stewart isn't a good way of doing business. Those kind of players are why the Reds could afford a contract like Alex Rios...

You make a very good point. I guess if the Reds avoided contracts like Rolen, Arroyo and Harang, and kept players like Roenicke and Stewart, picking up Rios and his contract is more doable. Maybe they should have a "One Big Contract Per Decade Rule?" ;)

Brutus

08-11-2009, 03:27 AM

Dude, I get that. I don't run the Reds either, and I'm fairly certain you aren't Walt Jocketty. So just play the game, will ya? :)

In a vacuum, I take Rios. Though he's underperformed and overpaid, I still think he's got a chance to take his game to another level. Problem is, there was no room for that contract. So I only take that under the assumption the Reds could unload one of the pitchers and you're then still left with Encarnacion at third.

So given a choice, probably Rios, but strings would have been attached with that answer.

AtomicDumpling

08-11-2009, 04:08 AM

If I had to do one or the other I would have made the Rolen deal. The Rios deal would definitely make the Reds a better team also.

It would be better to pass on both Rolen and Rios and build the team in the offseason instead. Rather than give up three good players to bring in one very good player (Rolen), or give $12 million per year to a good but not great player like Rios it would be better to grab good free agents in the winter. I would have gone strong after guys like Bobby Abreu and Adam Dunn last winter. Those are guys that were not getting the crazy top-dollar contracts, they wouldn't have cost the Reds any prospects other than an expensive draft pick and they would have made the team much better. Similar players will be available this winter.

The key is to use your cash to fill gaping holes with above-average players while keeping your prospects.

Upgrading the team during the season is more costly because you have to give up prospects and take another team's bad contract. Upgrading in the offseason by signing a free agent only costs you money.

If you have to surrender a draft pick to sign a Type A or B free agent it is not that bad of a thing because you can use the signing bonus you would have given that draftee to sign a Latin American prospect instead. So you aren't really losing too much in the way of future prospects.

Ron Madden

08-11-2009, 04:12 AM

If I had to do one or the other I would have made the Rolen deal. The Rios deal would definitely make the Reds a better team also.

It would be better to pass on both Rolen and Rios and build the team in the offseason instead. Rather than give up three good players to bring in one very good player (Rolen), or give $12 million per year to a good but not great player like Rios it would be better to grab good free agents in the winter. I would have gone strong after guys like Bobby Abreu and Adam Dunn last winter. Those are guys that were not getting the crazy top-dollar contracts, they wouldn't have cost the Reds any prospects other than an expensive draft pick and they would have made the team much better. Similar players will be available this winter.

The key is to use your cash to fill gaping holes with above-average players while keeping your prospects.

Upgrading the team during the season is more costly because you have to give up prospects and take another team's bad contract. Upgrading in the offseason by signing a free agent only costs you money.

If you have to surrender a draft pick to sign a Type A or B free agent it is not that bad of a thing because you can use the signing bonus you would have given that draftee to sign a Latin American prospect instead. So you aren't really losing too much in the way of future prospects.

Excellent Post. :thumbup:

11larkin11

08-11-2009, 07:14 AM

It's completely a moot point. Even if the Reds were interested, they could not have acquired Rios as the White Sox were first in the pecking order. Rios was not an option for the Reds.

Actually, it goes in reverse order of the standings, so I believe worse teams get first dibs, so I think the Reds had a chance and didn't claim him.

redsfandan

08-11-2009, 07:43 AM

This isn't the same situation as Griffey. He was usually around 25% of his team's payroll. Rios would be more like 15% of the budget. ...
True it wouldn't be as bad as Griffey but I think teams like the Reds need to be careful about committing that much of their payroll to one player.

And you expect the old and broked down Rolen to still be one of the best third baseman in the league post-2010? Because Rios will be much closer to his prime over that time frame. ...
Rios is 28 so he should be in his prime now but you wouldn't know it by looking at his stats.

nate

08-11-2009, 07:48 AM

Actually, it goes in reverse order of the standings, so I believe worse teams get first dibs, so I think the Reds had a chance and didn't claim him.

But I think it's by league then reverse order of standings. So, far example, the Yankees would still pick before the Nats.

I think.

Roy Tucker

08-11-2009, 07:51 AM

The Reds are just a small-market and small-thinking team.

Looking at the future, we've become the Pirates and will just churn through a slew of very mediocre talent.

Bah. I'm starting to not like this movie.

GoReds

08-11-2009, 08:01 AM

I'm sure to get pounded for this, but IMO Rolen brings more to the team than Rios would have. Rios represents what the Reds have already had for the last eight years - players who can fill the stat sheet but come up short on leadership and intangibles. The Reds need more players along the lines of Joey Votto and I see that with Rolen. Rios' contract looks like more of an albatross simply because he doesn't bring the leadership that a large contract implies. There's a reason Toronto let Rios walk within 2 years of signing a big contract and it certainly wasn't entirely about the money.

flyer85

08-11-2009, 08:52 AM

none of the above

nate

08-11-2009, 08:58 AM

If I had to do one or the other I would have made the Rolen deal. The Rios deal would definitely make the Reds a better team also.

It would be better to pass on both Rolen and Rios and build the team in the offseason instead. Rather than give up three good players to bring in one very good player (Rolen), or give $12 million per year to a good but not great player like Rios it would be better to grab good free agents in the winter. I would have gone strong after guys like Bobby Abreu and Adam Dunn last winter. Those are guys that were not getting the crazy top-dollar contracts, they wouldn't have cost the Reds any prospects other than an expensive draft pick and they would have made the team much better. Similar players will be available this winter.

The key is to use your cash to fill gaping holes with above-average players while keeping your prospects.

Upgrading the team during the season is more costly because you have to give up prospects and take another team's bad contract. Upgrading in the offseason by signing a free agent only costs you money.

If you have to surrender a draft pick to sign a Type A or B free agent it is not that bad of a thing because you can use the signing bonus you would have given that draftee to sign a Latin American prospect instead. So you aren't really losing too much in the way of future prospects.

Co-sign.

RedsManRick

08-11-2009, 09:03 AM

I'm not sure why everybody is making the comparison of Rolen to Rios straight up. That's not what the question is nor the differentiator. The Reds gave up over 10 years of sub-market priced production from EE, Roenicke, and Stewart to get Rolen. It's easy to forget what's no longer in front of you, but 2 or 3 years from now, the Reds could be out a mid-rotation starter and a back of the bullpen arm, both at sub-market prices.

Rios might be overpaid; time will tell. But it's pretty hard to ignore the value the Reds could have gotten either directly from, or through trade for EE, Stewart, and Roenicke.

lollipopcurve

08-11-2009, 09:05 AM

It's completely a moot point. Even if the Reds were interested, they could not have acquired Rios as the White Sox were first in the pecking order. Rios was not an option for the Reds.

Exactly.

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 10:36 AM

Neither player is a good option for this team at this time IMHO. Taking on an overpaid OF at that rate through 2014 wouldn't make any sense and paying a 35 year-old injury prone 3B $11M next year while trading away some potential MLB contributors is just silly. If the Reds are going to do these types of things, they better open up the purse strings so that they are competitive next year; otherwise, it is a pointless move.

Bum

MattyHo4Life

08-11-2009, 11:08 AM

I'm sure to get pounded for this, but IMO Rolen brings more to the team than Rios would have. Rios represents what the Reds have already had for the last eight years - players who can fill the stat sheet but come up short on leadership and intangibles. The Reds need more players along the lines of Joey Votto and I see that with Rolen. Rios' contract looks like more of an albatross simply because he doesn't bring the leadership that a large contract implies. There's a reason Toronto let Rios walk within 2 years of signing a big contract and it certainly wasn't entirely about the money.

I agree that Rolen is exactly the type of player that the Reds need. Rolen hustles and leaves everything he has on the field. He is the type of player that leads by example. On top of that, he wants to play for the Reds. Even when he was in Philly, the Reds and Cardinals are the two teams that he wanted to be traded for. This is a chance for the Reds to resgn Rolen to an affordable conract so he can end his career with the Reds. If the Reds don't resign him, I'd like to see him back in St. Louis. I doubt that will happen, but it would be great if it did. I don't think Jocketty will let Rolen slip away this time though, and I think Rolen would take less to stay in Cincinnati. I just wish Rolen was able to play in St. Louis this year so he could get the standing O that he deserve. If he doesn't get it this year, he will get it next year.

nate

08-11-2009, 11:08 AM

Neither player is a good option for this team at this time IMHO. Taking on an overpaid OF at that rate through 2014 wouldn't make any sense and paying a 35 year-old injury prone 3B $11M next year while trading away some potential MLB contributors is just silly. If the Reds are going to do these types of things, they better open up the purse strings so that they are competitive next year; otherwise, it is a pointless move.

Bum

We're not paying Rolen $11M next year.

I agree that they need to spend more or they need to do some really incredibly creative trades between now and opening day, 2010.

Falls City Beer

08-11-2009, 11:10 AM

I don't see why Rios would be helped offensively by moving to new Comiskey. Toronto's a launching pad too.

Emin3mShady07

08-11-2009, 11:24 AM

I don't see why Rios would be helped offensively by moving to new Comiskey. Toronto's a launching pad too.

Not really, it has had park factors of 98,99, and 99 (under 100 favors pitchers) from 2007-2009 compared to 106, 103, and 103 at the cell (over 100 favors hitters), so US Cellular Field is much more hitter friendly than the Rogers Centre.

These park factors are calculated like this http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml It's a bit staty for those who do not enjoy reading stuff like that.

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 11:28 AM

We're not paying Rolen $11M next year.

I agree that they need to spend more or they need to do some really incredibly creative trades between now and opening day, 2010.

What are we paying him then? You know the amount? $8M? $6M? My statement doesn't change unless it is equal to or less than EE.

Falls City Beer

08-11-2009, 11:28 AM

Not really, it has had park factors of 98,99, and 99 (under 100 favors pitchers) from 2007-2009 compared to 106, 103, and 103 at the cell (over 100 favors hitters), so US Cellular Field is much more hitter friendly than the Rogers Centre.

These park factors are calculated like this http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml It's a bit staty for those who do not enjoy reading stuff like that.

That's not all that pronounced. Pretty similar.

nate

08-11-2009, 11:34 AM

What are we paying him then? You know the amount? $8M? $6M? My statement doesn't change unless it is equal to or less than EE.

I think it nets out to only a couple million more than what they would've paid EE ($5mm) next year; something like the Jays pay all of this year and $3mm (or more, or less) of Rolen's salary next year.

Eric_the_Red

08-11-2009, 11:49 AM

I believe it is the BP guys that figure Rios would be a 20's HR hitter regardless of playing at the Rogers Centre or the Cell.

Emin3mShady07

08-11-2009, 11:58 AM

I believe it is the BP guys that figure Rios would be a 20's HR hitter regardless of playing at the Rogers Centre or the Cell.

Rios is a big time doubles hitter, the short gaps at the Cell would most likely turn a couple of those doubles into homers. It wouldn't be like moving from Oakland to Chicago, but it still should increase his offensive production a little.

Falls City Beer

08-11-2009, 12:00 PM

I believe it is the BP guys that figure Rios would be a 20's HR hitter regardless of playing at the Rogers Centre or the Cell.

Yeah, Rogers and Cell are mirror images vis. HRs. Offense generically might favor Cellular slightly, but insofar as homers are concerned, they are essentially the same park.

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 12:02 PM

Wade Boggs and Craig Biggio were 'big-time doubles hitters' and that never translated into those guys becoming sluggers...Is it possible Rios will develop? Sure. Is moving to Cellular Field going to be the key to his development? No. Not much difference without him actually developing as a player.

Bum

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 12:21 PM

I think it nets out to only a couple million more than what they would've paid EE ($5mm) next year; something like the Jays pay all of this year and $3mm (or more, or less) of Rolen's salary next year.

Can you point to someplace that states this? This is speculation and hope I imagine. We probably aren't paying $11M next year, but $8M is probably about is good as it gets; unless you have someplace to point me that states differently from a real source.

Bum

bucksfan2

08-11-2009, 02:07 PM

Can you point to someplace that states this? This is speculation and hope I imagine. We probably aren't paying $11M next year, but $8M is probably about is good as it gets; unless you have someplace to point me that states differently from a real source.

Bum

Edwin is due to make $4.75M last year so if the Jays kick over $3M in essence you are only increasing your payroll $3.25 for Rolen.

nate

08-11-2009, 02:15 PM

Can you point to someplace that states this? This is speculation and hope I imagine. We probably aren't paying $11M next year, but $8M is probably about is good as it gets; unless you have someplace to point me that states differently from a real source.

Bum

The Reds have been pretty vague about it but the dust seems to settle at $8mm which, as I said previously, is only $3mm more than EE.

In any event, it's not $11mm.

nate

08-11-2009, 02:16 PM

Edwin is due to make $4.75M last year so if the Jays kick over $3M in essence you are only increasing your payroll $3.25 for Rolen.

Right, that's how I understand it too.

Brutus

08-11-2009, 02:30 PM

Actually, it goes in reverse order of the standings, so I believe worse teams get first dibs, so I think the Reds had a chance and didn't claim him.

There was some confusion as to whether the rule was changed, but it was not. It goes reverse order of standings in the same league, then reverse order of standings in the opposite league. So all the teams in the AL, Washington, Pittsburgh and San Diego would have been in order before Cincinnati.

PuffyPig

08-11-2009, 04:03 PM

It's not the money, it's the length of the contract.

Mid market teams can not afford to lock up money long term. Look what is happening now with Harang, Arroyo and Cordero.

Unless the player is Albert Pujols or the like, the Reds should never have any player signed to a 5 year, $60M contract.

Then basically you are saying that the Reds will have to become the Marlins or the Nats.

If you won't go 5 years, $60M with deserving players, then everyone will become a FA who is worth that kind of money.

Bacause players like those will get that money, either from us or someone else.

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 04:03 PM

The Reds have been pretty vague about it but the dust seems to settle at $8mm which, as I said previously, is only $3mm more than EE.

In any event, it's not $11mm.

Sounds like a great deal put like that...too bad we left out that he's 35, has a bad back (and the Reds will be ecstatic if he plays 125 games next year) and is not a better hitter right now than EE; he is a better fielder by far, but we also gave up 2 guys that could have been pretty good in our bullpen next year (if Stewart wasn't being groomed as a starter in AAA) at the minimum MLB salary...So, if the Reds don't up payroll by $20M for next season, explain how this is a good deal???? Both these players (Rolen/Rios) are bad deals for the Reds, assuming they have similar payroll constraints going forward. Guys like this should be added when teams are ready to compete for Division titles, not when the team is ready to compete for 3rd (2010, optimistic at this point)....

Bum

UKFlounder

08-11-2009, 04:08 PM

He's not? He's sure better this year than Edwin (as are the vast majority of major leaguers...)

and is not a better hitter right now than EE;
Bum

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 04:11 PM

yeah...you are right...I forgot RZers can't see past this week (oh Rolen isn't playing at all...)....sorry, I was looking at the last couple of years as recent activity...it's crazy, but it's true...considering EE wrist injury and all...

bucksfan2

08-11-2009, 04:18 PM

Sounds like a great deal put like that...too bad we left out that he's 35, has a bad back (and the Reds will be ecstatic if he plays 125 games next year) and is not a better hitter right now than EE; he is a better fielder by far, but we also gave up 2 guys that could have been pretty good in our bullpen next year (if Stewart wasn't being groomed as a starter in AAA) at the minimum MLB salary...So, if the Reds don't up payroll by $20M for next season, explain how this is a good deal???? Both these players (Rolen/Rios) are bad deals for the Reds, assuming they have similar payroll constraints going forward. Guys like this should be added when teams are ready to compete for Division titles, not when the team is ready to compete for 3rd (2010, optimistic at this point)....

EE is younger and had a wrist injury this year...he still has a chance to be a better hitter than he has been so far. Rolen will not get better and most likely will revert back closer to 2007 from now until the end of his contract (2010). I'm speaking of offense only here. If the trade had been Rolen for EE straight up then I would be quiet about it (as long as we really get that $3M Nate says we are getting).

Bum

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 05:06 PM

The Bum has it right on this one...

nate

08-11-2009, 05:21 PM

Sounds like a great deal put like that...too bad we left out that he's 35,

He's 34.

Yeah, yeah, he'll be 35 OD next year. Got it. He's 34 now, however.

has a bad back (and the Reds will be ecstatic if he plays 125 games next year) and is not a better hitter right now than EE;By what measure is he not a better hitter right now than EE?

he is a better fielder by far, but we also gave up 2 guys that could have been pretty good in our bullpen next year That's a much better discussion than trying to say Scott Rolen is bad.

(if Stewart wasn't being groomed as a starter in AAA) at the minimum MLB salary...So, if the Reds don't up payroll by $20M for next season, explain how this is a good deal???? First, I don't know how spending $20mm in the offseason comes into it with Rolen as opposed to with the players the Reds gave up to get him. The Reds need SS, SP, CF, LF in about that order. If the Reds kept EE and the pitchers, they'd need SS, SP, CF, LF in about that order (if EE played like he normally did.) Payflex is pretty much the same.

Second point, I never said it was a "good deal." I only said that the Reds weren't on the hook for all $11mm of Rolen's salary. The net amount spent on Rolen is less than you portrayed it to be.

Both these players (Rolen/Rios) are bad deals for the Reds, assuming they have similar payroll constraints going forward. Guys like this should be added when teams are ready to compete for Division titles, not when the team is ready to compete for 3rd (2010, optimistic at this point)....At some point, they have to make the leap from living in their Mom's basement playing D&D with the Pirates to winning the division.

RichRed

08-11-2009, 05:22 PM

The Bum has it right on this one...

Possibly, but taking park factors into account, we might expect to see a bump in Rolen's numbers and a drop in Edwin's.

BRM

08-11-2009, 05:27 PM

At some point, they have to make the leap from living in their Mom's basement playing D&D with the Pirates to winning the division.

They are on the verge of losing the game of D&D to Pittsburgh this year.

Bumstead

08-11-2009, 05:30 PM

Nate

You are assuming every argument I made had to do with your comments alone. I only debated with you the amount owed to Rolen for this year and next; nobody on here knows that amount for sure. The rest of my debate was in relation to the topic; I am taking the position that both Rios and Rolen are bad options for the Reds at this time (however...that isn't a poll option so I didn't vote)...I didn't say Rolen was a bad player, just a bad fit and he doesn't make sense if the Reds are trying to build a team with their typical payroll constraints.

Bum

nate

08-11-2009, 05:30 PM

They are on the verge of losing the game of D&D to Pittsburgh this year.

Dastardly Kobold hordes.

cincrazy

08-11-2009, 05:31 PM

yeah...you are right...I forgot RZers can't see past this week (oh Rolen isn't playing at all...)....sorry, I was looking at the last couple of years as recent activity...it's crazy, but it's true...considering EE wrist injury and all...

Scott Rolen could hit better than EE if he decided to wake up one day and hit left handed.

nate

08-11-2009, 05:33 PM

Nate

You are assuming every argument I made had to do with your comments alone. I only debated with you the amount owed to Rolen for this year and next; nobody on here knows that amount for sure. The rest of my debate was in relation to the topic; I am taking the position that both Rios and Rolen are bad options for the Reds at this time (however...that isn't a poll option so I didn't vote)...I didn't say Rolen was a bad player, just a bad fit and he doesn't make sense if the Reds are trying to build a team with their typical payroll constraints.

Bum

I'm saying the payroll isn't as constrained by the Rolen signing as it seems.

*BaseClogger*

08-11-2009, 07:19 PM

Possibly, but taking park factors into account, we might expect to see a bump in Rolen's numbers and a drop in Edwin's.

It's a good point. Here's the two players OPS+ over the last three seasons:

Encarnacion - 99
Rolen - 104

I'm not going to make the argument that Encarnacion's numbers are hurt by playing injured in April because I'm sure Rolen played hurt quite a bit over the last three years too.

So, Rolen has been a slightly better hitter. Yes, the difference in defense is huge. But is the defensive upgrade worth his injury risk, two good pitching prospects, and an extra $3.25M next year?

Bumstead

08-12-2009, 09:26 AM

My point exactly Mr. BaseClogger! It's not just the extra $3.25M+, it's that it is to a 34 year old (!) injury prone guy at the expense of 2 pitching prospects and a player that is young enough to get better rather than being on the downside of his career. The payroll constraints are there whether they need to be or not; they cannot just be ignored.

Bum

membengal

09-07-2009, 04:38 PM

I don't know what Rios' deal is, but at this point, he's doing his best to make the choice: Rios or membengal and make it somewhat difficult.

SINCE the trade to the White Sox Rios has a .422 OPS and an OPS+ of 7.

Seriously.

lollipopcurve

09-08-2009, 10:34 AM

I don't know what Rios' deal is, but at this point, he's doing his best to make the choice: Rios or membengal and make it somewhat difficult.

SINCE the trade to the White Sox Rios has a .422 OPS and an OPS+ of 7.

Seriously.

Ozzie's been hitting him 8th/9th lately. Whole lotta dough low in the lineup.

REDREAD

09-08-2009, 12:06 PM

See, I don't get this. Unless you see the Reds as contenders in 2010, why would you want to acquire an expensive player who is not part of your long-term plans?

The Reds' ownership does not see 2010 as some people do here.

There's some people on this board that feel that unless the 2010 is going to contend, there's no point in acquiring any veteran. Maybe that is exaggerating, but that is the basic gist.

In reality, if the 2010 team can improve to maybe 3rd or 4th place (as opposed to last place), the team is going to sell more tickets, the casual fanbase is going to get more excited, etc.

I'm sure there were some Cardinal fans that thought it was pointless to trade for McGwire (TJ Matthews was a promising young arm at the time), since they were so far away from contending.

You've got to start somewhere to improve the team. We've been waiting for the farm to rescue us since the 2000 Neagle trade. It's not working.
Let's have a little confidence the Reds can find another Zach Stewart in the 3rd round of the next draft -- if they can't find prospects like that on a regular basis "build from the farm" is doomed anyway.

REDREAD

09-08-2009, 12:15 PM

EE is younger and had a wrist injury this year...he still has a chance to be a better hitter than he has been so far. Rolen will not get better and most likely will revert back closer to 2007 from now until the end of his contract (2010). I'm speaking of offense only here. If the trade had been Rolen for EE straight up then I would be quiet about it (as long as we really get that $3M Nate says we are getting).

Bum

The problem is that EdE is not a 3b.. he is basically a man without a position.
That really detracts from his value. I think if EdE was ever able to figure out how to field 3b at an average level, the Reds would've never traded him.

They have given EdE many years to improve his fielding. At some point, you just have to cut bait. In hindsight, EdE should've been nontendered last winter, but I guess Walt didn't want to be forced to use Harrison Jr as his everyday 3b (and I don't really blame him). Anyway, it would've been much more prudent just to give EdE a one year deal. Of course, it's easier to say that in hindsight.

HokieRed

09-08-2009, 07:09 PM

There's only one day on which to get better.

*BaseClogger*

09-08-2009, 08:49 PM

In reality, if the 2010 team can improve to maybe 3rd or 4th place (as opposed to last place), the team is going to sell more tickets, the casual fanbase is going to get more excited, etc.

The increase in revenue for finishing third is irrelevant compared to the opportunity cost (I'm taking econ this semester!)--hurting the teams chances of truly competing for a playoff spot further along the line...

Blitz Dorsey

09-10-2009, 02:19 AM

Neither would be a good deal, but the Reds did the lesser of the evils. Alex Rios is an awful baseball player that is extremely overpaid. He would be a whipping boy if he was a Redleg.

I don't like giving up Stewart for an aging Rolen, but I'd take that deal over anything that involves absorbing the full value of Rios' absurd contract.

TheNext44

09-10-2009, 10:56 AM

The increase in revenue for finishing third is irrelevant compared to the opportunity cost (I'm taking econ this semester!)--hurting the teams chances of truly competing for a playoff spot further along the line...

That's true, good job of paying attention in class. :thumbup:

But acquiring a player like Rolen can increase revenue significantly enough to justify the opportunity cost, regardless of where the Reds finish.

Rolen makes the team more exciting to the average fan. During this past decade, even though the Reds were never contenders, they were able to draw decently due to the popularity of Jr. and Dunn.

Now Rolen is no Jr. or Dunn, not even close. However, before he was acquired, the Reds really had no veteran star presence at all. Rolen at the least makes team look like a real major league team, and that is important for attendance.

Before the trade, I felt like I was watching a AAA team, a team that could only win if they got lucky. I felt the same way in '82, '89, '98, and '03. With Rolen in the lineup, I feel like I am watching a team than can win any game they play. I think that that is a minimum that a fan asks for from its team.

Fans may not go out to see the Reds to see Rolen, or because they finish 3rd instead of 5th, but I think Rolen helps prevent fans from turning away from the team and will help stabilize attendance for next year.

*BaseClogger*

09-10-2009, 05:01 PM

That's true, good job of paying attention in class. :thumbup:

But acquiring a player like Rolen can increase revenue significantly enough to justify the opportunity cost, regardless of where the Reds finish.

Rolen makes the team more exciting to the average fan. During this past decade, even though the Reds were never contenders, they were able to draw decently due to the popularity of Jr. and Dunn.

Now Rolen is no Jr. or Dunn, not even close. However, before he was acquired, the Reds really had no veteran star presence at all. Rolen at the least makes team look like a real major league team, and that is important for attendance.

Before the trade, I felt like I was watching a AAA team, a team that could only win if they got lucky. I felt the same way in '82, '89, '98, and '03. With Rolen in the lineup, I feel like I am watching a team than can win any game they play. I think that that is a minimum that a fan asks for from its team.

Fans may not go out to see the Reds to see Rolen, or because they finish 3rd instead of 5th, but I think Rolen helps prevent fans from turning away from the team and will help stabilize attendance for next year.

So, drawing 250,000 more fans who go to games to see Scott Rolen is more important than giving the team the best chance to contend in the future? :confused: